Distinguish the Frye test from the Daubert test regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In 1923, a federal court rendered a decision in the case of Frye v. United States establishing a standard which provided that, for the results of a scientific technique to be admissible, the technique must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in its particular field. Half a century later, the federal rules of evidence were adopted, which provide that if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, such evidence is admissible. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In that case, the court said that the "general acceptance" test of Frey is not part of the federal rules and, in fact, was superseded by the rule's adoption. Although Daubert only applies to cases in federal courts, a number of states have adopted the Daubert standard. Consequently, the application of Daubert and its aftermath has presented a challenge to crime laboratories to ensure that the standards imposed by the Court are followed in forensic examination so that expert testimony and the results of examinations by crime laboratory personnel will be admissible, in both state and federal courts.